DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 23, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10, 11, 13 – 23 and 25 are pending in the application with claims 13 – 20 being withdrawn and claims 2, 9, 12 and 24 being cancelled and claim 25 being newly added. The amendment to claims has overcome the claim objection set forth in the last Non-Final Action mailed July 29, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (US 2020/0291928 – herein after Mullins) in view of Morreale, John D. (US 2017/0211565 – herein after Morreale; cited by applicant on IDS dated 11/14/2023), Gustav Pielstick (US 1,836,498 – herein after Gustav; cited by applicant on IDS dated 11/14/2023), Mullins et al. (US 2020/0347843 – herein after Mullins II) and evidenced by Blume, George H (US 10,655,623 – herein after Blume).
In reference to claim 1, Mullins teaches an apparatus (in fig. 5), comprising:
a fluid end assembly (114) configured to be attached to a power end assembly (in view of disclosure in ¶25: power end assembly = assembly formed of drive end 112 + a component that is fastened to the drive end 112) using a plurality of fluid end rods (180), in which the power end assembly has opposed front and rear surfaces (front and rear surfaces of “a component” that is fastened to the drive end 112) and comprises:
a front support plate (112, in fig. 5) attached to the front surface of the power end assembly using a plurality of power end rods (see fig. A below: labelled “rods”);
in which at least a portion of at least one of the plurality of fluid end rods (180) is configured to be disposed within the front support plate (112);
in which the fluid end assembly (114, in fig. 5) comprises:
a housing (124/224) having a horizontal bore (as evident from fig. 5: this is the bore in which plunger assembly is present) formed therein, the housing (124) secured to the plurality of fluid end rods (180);
a stuffing box (see fig. A below) attached to the housing.
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 5 of Mullins to show claim interpretation.
Mullins remains silent on the apparatus “in which each of the plurality of power end rods is configured to extend through both the front and rear surfaces of the power end assembly”.
However, Morreale teaches a similar apparatus, comprising: a fluid end assembly (420, see fig. 5C) configured to be attached to a power end assembly (assembly 410 seen in fig. 4) using a plurality of fluid end rods (464, see fig. 5E), in which the power end assembly has opposed front and rear surfaces (left and right surfaces of 411 in view of fig. 5B) and comprises: a front support plate (442, see fig. 5B) attached to the front surface (left surface of 411 in view of fig. 5B) of the power end assembly using a plurality of power end rods (422), in which each of the plurality of power end rods (422) is configured to extend through the front surface of the power end assembly (as evident from fig. 5B).
In Mullins, power end assembly is an assembly formed of drive end 112 + a component that is fastened to the drive end 112 using power end rods (labelled “rods” in fig. A above). Both Mullins and Morreale teach a triplex reciprocating pump apparatus. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mullins power end rods to extend through front surface of the power end assembly as taught by Morreale in order to use Morreale’s power end assembly (410), whose size is adjustable in an appropriate manner so as to accommodate the required stroke length of the pump during operation, as recognized by Morreale (see ¶42, lines 29-34).
With respect to the limitation, “in which each of the plurality of power end rods is configured to extend through both the front and rear surfaces of the power end assembly”:
It is to be noted that the power end rods (422) in Morreale are capable of extending through both front and rear surfaces of the power end assembly. Furthermore, Gustav teaches a crank driven device that discloses the use of a through stay rod such that a first end and a second end of the modular power end assembly are exposed to the ambient environment (Figure 2, rods “f” that extend outside of the equivalent crank frame “m”).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plurality of power end rods with the externally accessible stay rods of Gutsav in the modified apparatus of Mullins and Morreale to allow for easier access to the fixing ends of the plurality of power end rods.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plurality of power end rods in the modified apparatus of Mullins and Morreale for having them extend through both the front and rear surfaces of the power end assembly as a matter of design choice to allow for effectively securing two parts together by choosing fasteners of adequate length. Further, applicant places no criticality for the claimed limitation of having the power end rods extend through both the front and rear surfaces of the power end assembly.
Mullins further remains silent on the apparatus with claimed features and arrangement of a stuffing box, plunger packing, plurality of fasteners and packing nut.
However, Mullins II teaches a similar apparatus, comprising:
a stuffing box (158, see fig. 3 and ¶23) attached to the housing (124, see fig. 3) and having a central opening (166, see fig. 5) and a plurality of passages (240, see fig. 5) formed therein, the plurality of passages surrounding the central opening (as evident from fig. 5);
a plunger packing (142, see fig. 3), at least a portion of the plunger packing installed within the central opening of the stuffing box (as evident from fig. 3);
a plurality of fasteners (244), each fastener of the plurality of fasteners disposed within a corresponding one of the plurality of passages (240) and configured to attach the stuffing box (158) to the housing (124) [see ¶34: “The larger fasteners 244 are utilized to fasten the first stuffing box member 158 (and by extension also the second stuffing box member 160 and the stuffing nut 144) to the fluid end 114”]; and
a packing nut (144, see fig. 3) attached to the stuffing box (158) and engaging the plunger packing (142).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify housing in the fluid end of Mullins for substituting a generic stuffing box assembly of Mullins for a specific stuffing box assembly as taught by Mullins II in order to obtain the predictable result of sealing the fluid leaks from the pump chamber. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Mullins teaches the apparatus, in which the fluid end assembly further comprises: a connect plate (236, see fig. 6) attached to the housing (224), in which (in view of figs. 5-6) an end (right end, in view of fig. 5) of each of the plurality of fluid end rods (180) is attached to the connect plate (2336).
Mullins further remains silent on the apparatus in which the fluid end assembly comprises: “a plurality of connect plates situated in a side-by-side relationship, in which each connect plate is attached to the housing, and in which an end of each of the plurality of fluid end rods is attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of connect plates”.
However, Blume teaches a similar apparatus, in which the fluid end assembly comprises a plurality of connect plates (1, see fig. 11) situated in a side-by-side relationship, in which each connect plate is attached to the housing (2), and in which an end (left end in view of fig. 11) of each of the plurality of fluid end rods (6) is attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of connect plates (1).
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “plurality of connect plates” (for instance, see ¶209 of filed specification, where applicant discusses embodiment of “plurality of connect plates” while also stating “In an alternative embodiment, multiple housings may be attached to a single, larger connect plate”), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the single connect plate in the apparatus of Mullins for a plurality of connect plates as a matter of design choice since it would have involve forming an integral/unitary structure into multiple pieces (as evidenced by Blume above). It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Mullins apparatus to perform equally well with claimed plurality of connect plates.
In reference to claim 3, Mullins, as modified above in claim 1, teaches the apparatus (in the modified apparatus, assembly seen in fig. A above is coupled, using the power end rods, to Morreale’s power end assembly 410), in which the front support plate (Morreale’s component 442, see fig. 5B or Mullins component 112, see fig. A above) is one of a plurality of front support plates (plural plates being Mullins component 112 and Morreale component 442 – herein after referred as 112+442), each front support plate (in view of Morreale’s fig. 5B and fig. A above) of the plurality of front support plates (112+442) configured to be attached to the front surface of the power end assembly using the plurality of power end rods (422; of Morreale).
In reference to claim 4, Mullins, as modified above in claim 1, teaches a pump (hydraulic fluid pump 110, as per ¶27 of Mullins), comprising: a power end assembly that is the power end assembly of claim 1; and the fluid end assembly of claim 1 attached to the power end assembly using the plurality of fluid end rods.
In reference to claim 5, Mullins, as modified above in claim 1, teaches the apparatus, further comprising (see Mullins II): a rear retainer (160) attached to the stuffing box (158) using the plurality of fasteners (244) [see ¶34: “The larger fasteners 244 are utilized to fasten the first stuffing box member 158 (and by extension also the second stuffing box member 160 and the stuffing nut 144) to the fluid end 114”], in which the packing nut (144) is installed within a central passage (196, see fig. 4) formed in the rear retainer (160).
In reference to claim 6, Mullins, as modified above in claim 1, teaches the apparatus, further comprising (see Mullins): a plurality of nuts (182), each nut of the plurality of nuts configured to be attached to an end (right end, in view of fig. 5) of a corresponding one of the plurality of fluid end rods (180) to secure the plurality of fluid end rods to the housing (124).
In reference to claim 7, Mullins, as modified above in claim 5, teaches the apparatus, in which the stuffing box (158 of Mullins II) is of single-piece construction (as evident from fig. 5 of Mullins II).
In reference to claim 8, Mullins, as modified above in claim 1, teaches the apparatus (see figs. 3-5 of Mullins II), in which a plurality of threaded openings (248) are formed within the housing (124), the plurality of threaded openings aligned with the plurality of passages (240) formed in the stuffing box (158) in a one-to-one relationship; and in which each of the plurality of fasteners (244) is installed within a corresponding one of the plurality of threaded openings (248) [in view of disclosure in ¶34 of Mullins II].
In reference to claim 21, Mullins, as modified above in claim 1, teaches the apparatus, in which the plurality of fluid end rods (180, see fig. 5 of Mullins) are vertically offset from the plurality of power end rods (viewed as “rods” in fig. A above) by a vertical offset (this offset being a distance between the asserted fluid end rods and the asserted power end rods).
In reference to claim 22, Mullins, as modified above in claim 21, remains silent on the apparatus, in which the vertical offset has a value of between 5 and 7 inches.
There is a value associated with the vertical offset. Mullins, as modified, remains silent on this value. Applicant has not disclosed any criticality associated for the claimed range of the vertical offset (see ¶402 of filed specification). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the claimed range for vertical offset in the modified apparatus of Mullins since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins in view of Morreale, Gustav, Mullins II, Blume (evidentiary reference) and Kotapish et al. (US 2015/0300332 – herein after Kotapish; cited by applicant on IDS dated 11/14/2023).
Mullins remains silent on the apparatus, further comprising: a sleeve disposed around each of the plurality of fluid end rods and interposed between the fluid end assembly and the front surface of the power end assembly, in which each of the plurality of fluid end rods traverses the entire corresponding sleeve.
However, Kotapish teaches an apparatus (see fig. 1) comprising a sleeve (32) disposed around each of the plurality of fluid end rods (19) and interposed between the fluid end assembly (14) and the front surface (right surface) of the power end assembly (12), in which each of the plurality of fluid end rods traverses the entire corresponding sleeve.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins for providing sleeve(s) around the fluid end rod(s) as taught by Kotapish in order to protect the tie rods from external damage such as abrasion, impact or corrosion.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume, George H (US 10,655,623 – herein after Blume) in view of Mullins et al. (US 2020/0291928 – herein after Mullins) and further in view of Gustav Pielstick (US 1,836,498 – herein after Gustav; cited by applicant on IDS dated 11/14/2023).
In reference to claim 1, Blume teaches an apparatus (see figs. 8-9), comprising:
a fluid end assembly (100) configured to be attached to a power end assembly (see fig. 8) using a plurality of fluid end rods (6), in which the power end assembly has opposed front and rear surfaces (left and right surfaces);
in which the fluid end assembly (100, see fig. 9) comprises:
a housing (2) having a horizontal bore (see fig. 8) formed therein, the housing (2) secured to the plurality of fluid end rods (6);
a stuffing box (packing box module 3) attached to the housing (2) and having a central opening (see fig. 10B) and a plurality of passages (formed by bores for packing box module retaining bolts 8) formed therein, the plurality of passages surrounding the central opening (as evident from fig. 10B);
a plunger packing (361), at least a portion of the plunger packing installed within the central opening of the stuffing box (as evident from fig. 10B);
a plurality of fasteners (8; in this instance in view of fig. 9, these fasteners are viewed as upper row of fasteners 8), each fastener of the plurality of fasteners disposed within a corresponding one of the plurality of passages (as seen in fig. 10B) and configured to attach the stuffing box (3) to the housing (2);
a packing nut (351) attached to the stuffing box (3) and engaging the plunger packing (361); and
a plurality of connect plates (1, see fig. 11) situated in a side-by-side relationship, in which each connect plate is attached to the housing (2), and in which an end (left end in view of fig. 11) of each of the plurality of fluid end rods (6) is attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of connect plates (1).
Blume remains silent on the apparatus wherein the power end assembly comprises: “a front support plate attached to the front surface of the power end assembly using a plurality of power end rods, in which at least a portion of at least one of the plurality of fluid end rods is configured to be disposed within the front support plate”.
However, Mullins teaches a similar apparatus (in fig. 5), comprising:
a fluid end assembly (114) configured to be attached to a power end assembly (in view of disclosure in ¶25: power end assembly = assembly formed of drive end 112 + a component that is fastened to the drive end 112) using a plurality of fluid end rods (180), in which the power end assembly has opposed front and rear surfaces (front and rear surfaces of “a component” that is fastened to the drive end 112) and comprises:
a front support plate (112, in fig. 5) attached to the front surface of the power end assembly using a plurality of power end rods (see fig. A above: labelled “rods”);
in which at least a portion of at least one of the plurality of fluid end rods (180) is configured to be disposed within the front support plate (112).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Blume for coupling Blume’s fluid end assembly to a power end assembly as taught by Mullins for the purpose of substituting one known power end assembly (in Blume) for another known power end assembly (in Mullins) in order to obtain the predictable result of providing power to the fluid end for pumping of the fluid. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Blume, as modified, remains silent on the apparatus “in which each of the plurality of power end rods is configured to extend through both the front and rear surfaces of the power end assembly”.
It is to be noted that the power end rods in Mullins are capable of extending through both front and rear surfaces of the power end assembly. Furthermore, Gustav teaches a crank driven device that discloses the use of a through stay rod such that a first end and a second end of the modular power end assembly are exposed to the ambient environment (Figure 2, rods “f” that extend outside of the equivalent crank frame “m”).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plurality of power end rods in the modified apparatus of Blume with the externally accessible stay rods of Gutsav to allow for easier access to the fixing ends of the plurality of power end rods.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plurality of power end rods in the modified apparatus of Blume for having them extend through both the front and rear surfaces of the power end assembly as a matter of design choice to allow for effectively securing two parts together by choosing fasteners of adequate length. Further, applicant places no criticality for the claimed limitation of having the power end rods extend through both the front and rear surfaces of the power end assembly.
In reference to claim 13, Blume, as modified above in claim 1, teaches the apparatus, further comprising (see Blume): a plurality of fasteners (8, see fig. 10B; in this instance in view of fig. 9, these fasteners are viewed as lower row of fasteners 8) attaching the plurality of connect plates (1) to the housing (2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume in view of Mullins and further in view of Gustav and Salih et al. (US 2018/0363642 – herein after Salih).
Blume, as modified, teaches the apparatus, in which the housing (2, see Blume’s fig. 9) is attached to the plurality of connect plates (1; of Blume); and in which the housing is attached to the power end assembly (to component 112 seen in fig. A above) using the plurality of fluid end rods (6; of Blume).
Blume, as modified, remains silent on the apparatus, in which the housing is one of a plurality of housings, the plurality of housings situated in a side-by-side relationship; in which each of the plurality of housings is attached to a single selected one of the plurality of connect plates in a one-to-one relationship; and in which each of the plurality of the housings is attached to the power end assembly using the plurality of fluid end rods.
However, Salih teaches the apparatus in which the housing (20/22) is one of a plurality of housings (three housings seen in fig. 1), the plurality of housings situated in a side-by-side relationship (as evident from fig. 1); and in which each of the plurality of the housings is attached to the power end assembly using the plurality of fluid end rods (present at bolt holes 26 seen in fig. 3; see ¶35).
Salih discloses (see ¶6) “Conventional fluid end bodies comprise a single monolithic block defining multiple plunger bores to accommodate multiple plungers. Accordingly, even if damage to the fluid end body is localized at one of the plunger bores, the entire fluid end body must be removed from the power end assembly to service the fluid end body. Further, if the localized damage cannot be repaired, the entire fluid end body must be replaced”. Blume teaches such a single monolithic block. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid end block or housing in the modified apparatus of Blume to have plural fluid end bodies/housings as taught by Salih so that the fluid end bodies is/are convenient and economical to service, as recognized by Salih (see ¶7).
Thus, Blume, as modified, teaches the apparatus, in which the housing is one of a plurality of housings (using the teaching of Salih), the plurality of housings situated in a side-by-side relationship; in which each of the plurality of housings is attached to a single selected one of the plurality of connect plates (of Blume) in a one-to-one relationship; and in which each of the plurality of the housings is attached to the power end assembly using the plurality of fluid end rods (of Blume).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume in view of Mullins and further in view of Gustav and Tiffany et al. (US 5,636,975 – herein after Tiffany).
Blume teaches the apparatus, in which the fluid end assembly further comprises: an intake valve (114, see fig. 10B); and a discharge valve (214, see fig. 10B).
Blume remains silent on the apparatus, in which the fluid end assembly further comprises: a fluid routing plug configured to route fluid from the intake valve to the discharge valve; in which the intake valve, the discharge valve, and the fluid routing plus are all situated within the horizontal bore.
However, Tiffany teaches the apparatus, in which the fluid end assembly further comprises: an intake valve (100, see fig. 6 or fig. 11); a discharge valve (136, see fig. 6); a fluid routing plug (74, see fig. 6) configured to route fluid from the intake valve to the discharge valve; in which the intake valve, the discharge valve, and the fluid routing plus are all situated within the horizontal bore (as evident from fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid end assembly in the apparatus of Blume for the inlet and discharge valve arrangement that comprises an intake valve, a discharge valve, a fluid routing plug configured to route fluid from the intake valve to the discharge valve; in which the intake valve, the discharge valve, and the fluid routing plus are all situated within the horizontal bore as taught by Tiffany for the purpose of providing a high-pressure pump design that is “adapted for continuous operation at pressures at or above about 15,000 psi”, and that utilizes “an improved, long-life flow control valve for regulating the flow of liquid into and out of the plunger cylinder of a high-pressure, plunger-type liquid pump”, as recognized by Tiffany (see col. 1, lines 7-12).
Claims 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegebarth, Donald (US 5,507,630 – herein after Hegebarth) in view of Mullins et al. (US 2020/0347843 – herein after Mullins II).
In reference to claim 1, Hegebarth teaches an apparatus (10; see figs. 1, 2 and 5), comprising:
a fluid end assembly (assembly formed of components such as 26+14+24+22+12+48+50) configured to be attached to a power end assembly (assembly formed of components such as 16+40+42) using a plurality of fluid end rods (18, 20), in which the power end assembly has opposed front and rear surfaces (left and right surfaces respectively for component 40 in the asserted power end assembly) and comprises:
a front support plate (16) attached to the front surface of the power end assembly (left surface of component 40 in the asserted power assembly) using a plurality of power end rods (32a, 32b, 32c), in which (as evident from fig. 1) each of the plurality of power end rods (32a, 32b, 32c) is configured to extend through both the front and rear surfaces of the power end assembly (left and right surfaces respectively for component 40 in the asserted power end assembly);
in which (see fig. 1) at least a portion of at least one of the plurality of fluid end rods (18, 20) is configured to be disposed within the front support plate (16);
in which the fluid end assembly (see fig. 1) comprises:
a housing (12+48+50+44+46) having a horizontal bore (see fig. 5) formed therein, the housing secured to the plurality of fluid end rods (18, 20);
a stuffing box (see fig. 5: assembly formed by components 36+66a-66d+78a; 34+68a-68d+78b) attached to the housing (attached to component 12 of the asserted housing); and
a plurality of connect plates (such as components 26, 14; see fig. 1) situated in a side-by-side relationship (side-by-side relationship in axial direction), in which each connect plate is attached to the housing (12+48+50+44+46), and in which an end (left end portion in view of fig. 1) of each of the plurality of fluid end rods (18, 20) is attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of connect plates (26, 14).
Hegebarth remains silent on the apparatus with claimed features and arrangement of a stuffing box, plunger packing, plurality of fasteners and packing nut.
However, Mullins II teaches a similar apparatus, comprising:
a stuffing box (158, see fig. 3 and ¶23) attached to the housing (124, see fig. 3) and having a central opening (166, see fig. 5) and a plurality of passages (240, see fig. 5) formed therein, the plurality of passages surrounding the central opening (as evident from fig. 5);
a plunger packing (142, see fig. 3), at least a portion of the plunger packing installed within the central opening of the stuffing box (as evident from fig. 3);
a plurality of fasteners (244), each fastener of the plurality of fasteners disposed within a corresponding one of the plurality of passages (240) and configured to attach the stuffing box (158) to the housing (124) [see ¶34: “The larger fasteners 244 are utilized to fasten the first stuffing box member 158 (and by extension also the second stuffing box member 160 and the stuffing nut 144) to the fluid end 114”]; and
a packing nut (144, see fig. 3) attached to the stuffing box (158) and engaging the plunger packing (142).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify housing in the fluid end assembly of Hegebarth for substituting a stuffing box assembly of Hegebarth for a specific stuffing box assembly as taught by Mullins II in order to obtain the predictable result of sealing the fluid leaks from the pump chamber. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
In reference to claim 23, Hegebarth, as modified above in claim 1, teaches the apparatus (see Hegebarth), in which (see fig. 1) the plurality of fluid end rods (18, 20) extend parallel to the plurality of power end rods (32a, 32b, 32c); and in which the power end assembly (16+40+42) further comprises a longitudinal centerline (↔; in view of fig. 1) which is a reciprocation axis of a plunger (52, 54; see fig. 5); in which the fluid end assembly further comprises:
a first vertical offset (↨; in view of fig. 1) between the longitudinal centerline and the plurality of fluid end rods (18, 20); and
a second vertical offset (↨; in view of fig. 1) between the longitudinal centerline and the plurality of power end rods (32a, 32b, 32c);
in which the second vertical offset is larger than the first vertical offset (the claimed relationship is present because the fluid end rods are on the inner side of the power end rods in view of fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
The following applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered:
With respect to claim 1: The arguments presented in view of newly added limitation of “a plurality of connect plates” are moot. The amendment to claim 1 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the previously applied prior arts have been re-evaluated and re-applied in view of newly found references of Blume and Hegebarth. These new references teach “a plurality of connect plates” as discussed above in the rejection.
With respect to claim 3: The previous interpretation is corrected to identify the “plurality of plates” in modified apparatus of Morreale to be formed by Morreale’s component 442 (described as rear plate by Morreale) and Mullins component 112 (seen as plate in fig. A above). Thus, the arguments presented are moot. However, the applicant’s reliance on a narrowly dictionary definition of “plate” is unpersuasive. The phrase “plate” does not inherently imply a specific geometry (such as “smooth flat thin piece of material”). In the context of pump assemblies, a “plate”, under BRI, refers to a structural support component.
With respect to claim 10: This claim has new grounds of rejection in view of its scope change over newly added limitations. As a result, the arguments are moot.
With respect to claim 11: The presented arguments, with respect “a plurality of connect plates” in claim 1, are moot in view of the claim’s dependency on claim 1.
With respect to claim 23: This claim has new grounds of rejection in view of its scope change over newly added limitations. As a result, the arguments are moot.
With respect to newly added claim 25: The applicable arguments, with respect to claim 1, are moot for same reasons as discussed above. The newly added limitations are not allowable in view of the rejection discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746